THE DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS. 


By Senator Joseph L. Bristow. 


The really historic incident of the first session of the Sixty-second 
Congress was not the passing of the reciprocity bill, the enactment of 
the corrupt-practices act, the tariff discussion, or the admission of 
two new States, but the passing by the Senate of the joint resolution 
providing for the election of Senators by direct vote. Many tariff 
bills have passed the Senate, and many States have been admitted to 
the Union, but it has taken more than 60 years of effort to induce the 
Senate to agree to give the people an opportunity to change the 
method of electing its Members. 

The fight for the direct election of Senators has been long and 
interesting. Among the numerous compromises that were agreed 
to by the framers of the Constitution was one providing for the elec¬ 
tion of Senators by the State legislatures instead of choosing them 
by appointment or by a popular election. After the animosities 
growing out of the discussion and adoption of the Constitution had 
passed away, for almost half a century there appeared to be little 
dissatisfaction with the method provided for the election of Senators. 
It was not until 1826 that any action was taken in Congress looking 
to a change in this provision of the Constitution. During that year 
Mr. Storrs, a Congressman from the State of New York, introduced 
a resolution providing for an amendment to the Constitution making 
Senators elective by a direct vote of the people. And since that 
date there has been a growing demand for such a change in our 
Constitution. 

Mr. Storrs’s effort was followed by the introduction of a similar 
resolution by Mr. Wright, of Ohio, on February 19, 1829. This reso¬ 
lution limited the senatorial term to four years. Six years after- 
m 1835, another resolution similar to that presented by Mr. 
Storrs was introduced, but no serious consideration was ever given to 
any of these resolutions. As time went on, however, the sentiment 
in favor of the direct election of Senators grew; and between 1850 
and 1855 there were at least five such resolutions introduced in the 
lower House of Congress. None of them was ever reported from the 
committees to which they were referred. 

The first resolution introduced in the Senate providing for a change 
in the method of electing Senators was presented on January 14, 
1850, by Senator Clemens, of Alabama. It is interesting to note 
that the most ardent advocate of changing the method of choosing 
Senators, from election by the State legislatures to that of a direct 
vote of the people, was Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. While a 
Member of the House of Representatives he introduced two resolu¬ 
tions providing for this change in the Constitution; and in 1860, 

3 




4 


THE DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS. 


when a member of the Senate, he renewed the agitation. In 1868, 
when President of the United States, he sent a special message 
to Congress advocating the measure, and he repeated the same 
recommendations in his annual message. Johnson was the advocate 
not only of the direct election of Senators, but also of abolishing the 
electoral college and electing Presidents by a direct vote. If it had 
not been for the tragedies of the Civil War, which absorbed the 
attention of the public for so many years and which completely 
changed the course of Johnson's life, he might have accomplished 
more than he did in enlarging this democratic principle in our 
national affairs. 

From the effort which Johnson made in 1860 there seems to have 
been no interest taken in the matter in the Senate until 1873. On 
January 31 of that year Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, introduced a resolution 
providing for the direct election of Senators, and in December of the 
same year Mr. Windom, of Minnesota, presented another. Both of 
these resolutions were referred to the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections, but never reported from the committee. In 1876 Mr. 
Wright, of Iowa, introduced another resolution, which was referred 
to the same committee, with a like result. The matter was then 
permitted to sleep for 10 years, when Senator Van Wyck, of Nebraska, 
mtroduced a resolution—December 16, 1886—which was referred to 
the Committee on Judiciary, but never reported. In 1888 Mr. 
Mitchell, of Oregon, introduced another resolution, which was referred 
to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and met the fate of 
all that had preceded it. 

The House of Representatives of the Fifty-second and Fifty-third 
Congresses passed resolutions providing for the direct election of 
Senators. These resolutions, when they reached the Senate, were 
referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, but none was 
reported until the third session of the Fifty-third Congress, when the 
committee reported one of the resolutions adversely. During the 
first session of the Fifty-fourth Congress there was a favorable report 
from the committee on a resolution that had passed the House of 
Representatives, but no action was taken by the Senate. Again, a 
resolution passed the House on May 11, 1898, by a vote of 185 to 11, 
but in the Senate it likewise met the fate of all that had preceded it. 

On April 13, 1900, a resolution again passed the House by a vote 
of 240 to 15. When it reached the Senate it was referred to the 
Committee on Privileges and Elections, but never emerged from the 
committee room. Again, on February 13, 1902, the House passed a 
resolution by a practically unanimous vote, there being no division; 
but it, too, was buried in the Senate committee room. It will be 
noticed that the Senate itself has been the barrier that for over half 
a century has blocked the movement for the direct election of Sena¬ 
tors. This year, for the first time, that barrier yielded to the force 
of public opinion and a resolution for such a change in our Constitu¬ 
tion passed that body. 

With the development during recent times of the great corporate 
interests of the country, and the increased importance of legislation 
relating to their affairs, they have tenaciously sought to control the 
election of Senators friendly to their interests. The power of these 
great financial and industrial institutions can be very effectively used 
in the election of Senators by legislatures, and they have many times 



THE DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS. 


5 


during recent years used that power in a most reprehensible and scan¬ 
dalous manner. They have spent enormous amounts of money in 
corrupting legislatures to elect to the Senate men of their own 
choosing. 

Through the influence of the Senators so elected, who have become 
known as corporation Senators, legislation to control the trusts and 
monopolies has been smothered in committees and defeated in the 
Senate. Under the operation of our political institutions Senators 
exercise great influence in the appointment of Federal judges; and by 
controlling the election of Senators these great interests have to a 
large extent been able to secure the appointment of judges who are 
more devoted to their interests than to the public welfare. These 
various abuses have been responsible for the rapid growth of the senti¬ 
ment for a change in the method of electing Senators and for the adop¬ 
tion of a method that would make the power of the great financial 
interests less potent. 

So, as I said in the beginning, the first session of this Congress is made 
historic by passing through the Senate a resolution for the direct elec¬ 
tion of Senators by the people. The historian will record that in 1911, 
85 years after the first resolution was introduced in the House of 
Representatives, a joint resolution providing for an amendment to 
the Constitution changing the method of electing Senators passed the 
Senate for the first time. The narrative of its passage, its imprison¬ 
ment in a conference committee, and its final passage is an interesting 
story. 


WHAT WENT ON IN SUBCOMMITTEE. 

On December 13, 1909, I introduced a resolution in the Senate 
providing for the direct election of Senators and asked that the 
resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, realizing 
that if it went to the Committee on Privileges and Elections it would 
meet the same fate that other resolutions referred to that committee 
had encountered. That committee had been organized apparently 
for the purpose of preventing any such proposition being brought 
before the Senate. My resolution was in substance the same as 
those that had passed the House in 1898, 1900, and 1902. It changed 
section 3 of Article I of the Constitution and provided that— 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State 
chosen at a general election by the electors thereof for a term of six years. 

I had some difficulty in obtaining a report on the resolution from 
the committee. On February 7, 1910, in the open Senate, I inquired 
of Mr. Clark, of Wyoming, the chairman, as to the probable time of a 
report. On February 14, 1910,1 brought the matter up again, renew¬ 
ing my request for a report. On June 17, 1910, I moved to discharge 
the committee from further consideration of the resolution, and on 
the following day I spoke briefly to that motion, calling attention to 
the fact that 37 States had declared practically for direct election 
of Senators—33 by resolution of their legislatures asking for such a 
change in the Constitution and 4 others by adopting primary sys¬ 
tems for the nomination of Senators. Up to that time I had received 
little encouragement from the committee as to its probable report. 

The resolution had one very ardent friend on the committee, Mr. 
W. E. Borah, the junior Senator from Idaho. During this long period 


6 


THE DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS. 


of delay Mr. Clark had advised me that he was going to appoint a sub¬ 
committee to consider the measure and kindly asked ir there was 
any member of the committee that I was especially desirous of having 
on that subcommittee. I told him I would be greatly pleased if he 
would make Mr. Borah one of its members. Tliis he did, and every 
friend of the measure should feel grateful to Mr. Clark for so doing; 
for, if it had not been for Mr. Borah’s tireless work in behalf of the 
resolution, in my judgment it would have died in the committee, as 
most of its predecessors had done. 

The subcommittee consisted of Mr. Dillingham, of Vermont; Mr. 
Rayner, of Maryland; and Mr. Borah. Dillingham was opposed to 
any resolution changing the present method of electing Senators. 
Rayner was opposed to the resolution in the form that I had intro¬ 
duced it and wanted it in the same form as passed by the House in 
1893. Borah was anxious and determined to get some kind of a 
report. 

At the time the resolution was reported in that form none of us 
realized what were to be the serious results of this change in its pro¬ 
visions. As introduced, it provided only for changing section 3 of 
article 1, which relates to the election of Senators. As reported, it 
not only changed the method of electing Senators but also changed 
section 4 of the same article, thereby taking from the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment all control over the times and manner of electing Senators. 

Section 3 now provides that: 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, 
chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. 

My resolution simply proposed to amend this section by substi¬ 
tuting for the words “chosen by the legislature thereof” the words 
“chosen at a general election by the electors thereof,” so that it 
would read: 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, 
chosen at a general election by the electors thereof for a term of six years. 

It did not change section 4 in any way, thereby leaving the Federal 
authority over the times and manner of holding elections just as it 
is now and as it has been since the Constitution was written by the 
fathers of the Republic. Section 4, which the committee sought to 
change, reads: 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representa¬ 
tives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress 
may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to places of choosing 
Senators. 

The committee resolution proposed to strike out the following 
clause in this section: “but the Congress may at any time by law 
make or alter such regulations.” There is no reason for striking out 
those words because of the change in the method of electing Senators. 
They confer a power on the Federal Government in the matter of 
electing Senators, and that power is just as essential whether the 
Senators are elected by a direct vote or by the legislatures. The 
truth is that the power conferred upon the General Government under 
section 4 has not often been used; but that is not a valid reason for 
taking it away. In 1866 it was made the basis of important legisla¬ 
tion in fixing the times when the legislatures should elect their 
Senators. 





THE DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS. 7 

I J. P. Stockton, of New Jersey, had been elected by the New Jersey 
Legislature and commissioned by the governor, though he had received 
only a plurality—not a majority—of the votes cast in the legislature. 
A contest was made and his right to a seat questioned. On March 23, 
1866, a vote was taken and Stockton was permitted to retain his 
seat by a majority of one, he himself casting that vote. The im¬ 
propriety of counting Stockton’s vote for himself and the danger of 
the precedent of seating a Senator elected only by a plurality of the 
votes in the legislature caused intense criticism, and three days 
later the Senate reversed its action and Stockton was deprived of 
his seat. 

Then a law regulating the times and manner of holding senatorial 
elections was enacted. It provided that on the second Tuesday 
after the meeting and organization of a legislature, when a Senator is 
to be elected, the two houses shall meet separately and by a viva-voce 
vote nanie a Senator. On the following day the two houses shall 
meet in joint assembly and the results of the voting shall be canvassed. 
If each house has given a majority vote to the same man he is elected; 
if not the joint assembly shall meet at noon of each succeeding day 
during the session and take at least one vote—until a Senator shall 
be elected. Since that time every Senator who has been elected has 
been chosen under this statute. 

On January 11, 1911, over a year after the resolution was referred 
to the committee, it reported the substitute for the resolution I had 
introduced, which substitute took from the Federal Government the 
authority granted it by section 4 of article 1. This provision became 
a source of animated discussion. Mr. Sutherland, of Utah, a member 
of the committee, offered an amendment striking out that part of 
the resolution repealing the clause in section 4; and after a heated 
debate running tnrough several weeks that amendment was adopted, 
receiving all the Republican votes but eight and one Democratic vote. 

THE FIGHT OVER SECTION 4. 

A number of Republicans voted against the Sutherland amendment 
because they believed the resolution would receive more votes in the 
Senate with the part repealing section 4 in than if it were stricken out, 
and though not in sympathy with the change curtailing the Federal 
power, they felt that it was better to have the resolution passed— 
even if it changed section 4 — than not to pass it at all; so they yielded 
their judgment in regard to the advisability of changing that section 
rather than endanger the passage of the resolution. 

The vote on the resolution was had on the 28th of February; but 
previous to that Senator Root had made an inflammatory speech 
against the South because of the method employed by the Southern 
States in depriving negroes of the right of suffrage. Senator Bacon 
had replied with equal animation. These two Senators, both of 
whom were opposed to the proposition, because of their prominence 
and the ability with which they thrashed over the negro question 
and the old State-rights doctrine, attracted a great deal of attention 
\ to that part of the resolution reported by the committee which 
repealed the clause in section 4. Senator Borah in an extended 
speech in the Senate took the position that the change in section 4 
would not have the effect claimed by either Senator Root or Senator 
Bacon. 


8 THE DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS. 

Unfortunately, as a result of this debate, it became apparently 
more of an issue as to whether section 4 should be changed than as 
to whether we should change the method of electing Senators. There 
are a great many people in the country who sincerely and earnestly 
believe that it would be unfortunate and dangerous to take from the 
Federal Government the power given it by section 4; and since this 
is not a new power granted by one of the amendments that grew out 
of the slavery controversy and the Civil War they can not under-, 
stand why southern Senators and Congressmen should demand its; 
repeal. Why should we now go back and take from the Federal* 
Government an authority that was given it by its original framers 
unless there appears to be some valid reason for taking from the 
General Government that power ? 

An intense race prejudice exists in the South, and to array this 
prejudice against the amendment as it passed the Senate was not 
improbably the purpose of some Senators who opposed the resolu¬ 
tion. They not only appealed to the race prejudices, but also to the 
doctrine of State rights, which is still dear to many southern Demo¬ 
crats. These foreign questions were injected into the discussion in 
the Senate and used by the Senators who are opposed to the direct 
election of Senators. 

I do not believe section 4 should be changed. I think the Federal 
Government ought to have the power that it confers. I think it was 
of vital concern in 1866, when the Stockton controversy was up. At 
one time I was ready to sacrifice my belief in that respect if by so 
doing I could get the resolution changing the method of electing 
Senators adopted, because I considered that of the most vital conse¬ 
quence to our country. One thing is certain, the Senate must 
become more responsive to public opinion than it has been in recent 
years, and it will be made so by the American people even if they 
have to nullify the provision in the Constitution relating to the 
election of Senators, by passing State laws, such as the Oregon law, 
which requires the people of the State to select at the general election 
a candidate for United States Senator whom the legislature is fj 
practically directed by State statute to elect. The people will 
govern this country and protect themselves from the powers of greed J 
and avarice in spite of the Constitution if they have to. This they j 
have done in the election of their Presidents, and in time they will do / 
so in the election of their Senators. 

VICTORY AFTER COUNTLESS DEFEATS. 

On February 28 the resolution came to a vote. For more than 
half a century every device known to parliamentary practice had 
been resorted to to prevent the Senate from taking a record vote on 
the proposition; but at last the vote was taken, and the resolution 
was defeated, the vote being 54 for and 33 against. Two-thirds j 
being required, it lacked 4 votes of having a sufficient number. 

The new Congress was convened by the President on April 4, and 10 
Senators who had voted against the resolution had retired. From l 
careful inquiry I learned that at least 6 of the 10 new Senators would \ 
have voted for the resolution if they had been members of the Senate 
when the vote was taken. So I determined, with the convening of 
the Senate, immediately to introduce the resolution in the same form 
as it had been voted upon, feeling certain that if we could get it to a 






THE DIRECT ELECTION OF SENATORS. 


9 


vote again in that form it would pass without question. So on April 6 
I introduced the resolution. It was again referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary. 

Meantime the House of Representatives had passed a resolution in the 
same form as it was reported to the Senate by the Senate committee at 
the former session. This House resolution, when it came over to the 
Senate, was also referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
and that committee promptly reported out the House resolution in 
lieu of the one I had introduced. I at once offered the resolution in 
the form I had introduced it, and as voted upon at the former session, 
as a substitute for that reported by the committee, feeling confident 
not only that it was the best form, but that it would be more certain 
of passage in that form than in any other. 

This substitute, commonly called the Bristow amendment, was 
debated with the same animation as had been the amendment offered 
by Mr. Sutherland at the former session. Mr. Bacon, of Georgia, led 
the opposition, claiming that it was conferring upon the Federal Gov- 
erment authority to enact force bills and send armies and United 
States marshals into Southern States to intimidate voters, though 
the Senator from Georgia must know that there never have been and 
never will be United States troops or marshals sent to the South under 
section 4, if it remains in the Constitution. It was not under the 
powers conferred by that section that President Grant sent troops to 
supervise southern elections, but under the fourteenth amendment. 

Many extravagant assertions were made as to the results of electing 
Senators by a direct vote without changing section 4—the same old 
play upon sectional prejudices was indulged in. So vigorous was the 
attack by a number of opponents of the resolution that an impres¬ 
sion was created in many sections of the country that I was trying 
to add new powers of control to the Federal Government, when, in 
fact, I was only seeking to preserve in the Federal Government an 
authority that it has had since the beginning. 

On the adoption of the substitute there was a tie vote in the 
Senate, the Vice President casting the decisive vote in its favor, so 
that the resolution came before the .Senate for final action on June 12, 
1911, in exactly the form in which it was voted upon on the 28th of 
February last. This time it carried by a vote of 64 for and 24 against, 
receiving 5 more than the two-thirds, thus confirming the judgment 
of the Senators who believed it was more certain of passage in that 
form than in any other. If the substitute had not been adopted, 
from the most accurate information the resolution would have lacked 
two or three votes of a sufficient number to pass. 

The passage of the resolution was a great triumph. After 85 
years of agitation both Houses had agreed that Senators should be 
elected by a direct vote instead of by the legislatures. The Senate, 
however, having rejected the change in section 4, as provided by the 
resolution that had passed the House, the bill went to conference— 
and there it remained, the representatives of the two Houses disagree¬ 
ing on the paragraph repealing a part of section 4. Mr. Rucker, 
of Missouri, was the chairman of the committee of the House, and he, 
after months of conference, finally recommended to the House that 
it accept the Senate resolution. This he could'very consistently do, 
for, as a Member of the House in 1900, he voted in favor of the res¬ 
olution that then passed, which is substantially the same as that which 
passed the Senate this year. 

S. Doc. 666, 62-2-2 


LIBRARY Uh LUNUKbbo 


10 


THE DIKECT ELECTION 0] 



0 012 322 140 0 O 

Champ Clark, present Speaker of the House, was also a Member of 
Congress in 1900, and he voted for the resolution as it then passed, 
which was substantially the same as the Senate resolution. So did 
Underwood, of Alabama; Burleson, of Texas; Clayton, of Alabama; 
Newlands, of Nevada; Kitchin, of North Carolina; Livingston, of 
Georgia; Lloyd, of Missouri; Stephens, of Texas; Taylor, of Alabama; 
and Williams, of Mississippi—all, with the exception of Livingston, 
of Georgia, now Democratic leaders in Congress. Senators Williams 
and Bankhead were both Members of Congress in 1900 and voted for 
the resolution, but as Members of the Senate this time they both 
voted against the resolution, because it did not repeal the clause in 
section 4. 

From this record it clearly appears that these Democratic leaders 
in the past favored the resolution for the direct election of Senators 
in practically the exact form in which it passed the Senate. It is 
very fortunate that Mr. Rucker and his Democratic advisers yielded 
the point, for otherwise by holding up this great national reform in 
order to force a change in section 4 they would have shifted the entire 
controversy from the question as to whether the people shall elect 
their Senators by a direct vote to that of the advisability of taking 
from the Federal Government the control over the election of Senators 
that the Fathers of the Republic gave it when they framed the Con¬ 
stitution. 

On May 13, 1912, the House voted on Mr. Rucker’s report and the 
resolution passed by a vote of 237 for to 39 against. This overwhelm¬ 
ing vote of the House was exceedingly gratifying to the friends of 
the measure, and Mr. Rucker deserves high praise for his earnest 
devotion to this great cause. The resolution as finally passed leaves 
the Federal Government with the same authority to regulate the elec¬ 
tion of Senators that it now has over the election of Members of 
Congress. 

Congress, at the extra session of 1911, passed a corrupt-practices 
act requiring every candidate for the Senate, not only in a State 
primary, but before a State legislature, to declare under oath before 
and after the primary, and before and after the election, the amount 
of money he has expended. Promises of political patronage of anv 
kind are forbidden. 

The authority that the Federal Government has to enact such a 
corrupt-practices act is conferred by the Constitution in the very 
provision of section 4 that it was sought to repeal, and we certainly 
should not have taken any course that would weaken the Federal 
Government in enforcing such a statute. We do not believe that 
anyone, after reflection, who favors the direct election of Senators 
would want the authority of the Federal Government so changed. 

Congress now having acted, it is hoped that the State legislatures 
will ratify the resolution as promptly as possible, so that the people 
may enjoy the fruits of this great reform. An effort may be made in 
some sections of the country by those who are opposed to the change 
in the method of electing Senators to stir up opposition because of 
some side issue, but I have faith in the judgment of the great mass 
of the American people and believe that they will eagerlv avail* 
themselves of the opportunity to bring the Senate nearer to the people 
and make it more quickly responsive to the public will, and that the 
amendment will be speedily ratified 

o 





